WCD report: a framework for underdevelopment?

The World Commission on Dams (WCD) has published its final report claiming that the process has pioneered a new path for global public policy making on issues of suitable and sustainable development. However, the Commission deliberately chose data to prove its preconceived hypothesis against dams completely ignoring the compulsions of developing countries like India. The alternatives suggested to dams are impractical as stand alone options and would bring in more misery to people, particularly to the economically weaker sections of society.

THE WORLD Commission on Dams (WCD) has launched its final report in India and is trying to ensure the acceptance of its recommendations by holding public discussions. As per WCD, the dam's debate is complex as well as simple. It is complex because issues are not confined to the design, construction, and operation of dams themselves but embrace the range of social, environmental and political choices on which human aspirations to development and improved well-being depend. It is simple because behind the array of economics, statistics and engineering calculations lay a number of basic and easily understood principles. Hence, the Commission had a well cutout task to conduct a rigorous independent review of the development effectiveness of large dams, to assess alternatives and to propose practical guidelines for future decision-making.

Accordingly, the Commission initiated eight independent in-depth case studies of specific large dam projects and two country studies (India and China), undertook 17 thematic studies, conducted a comprehensive global survey of 125 dams to cross- check the findings of individual studies and examined around 1,000 dams with varying degrees of intensity. Interestingly, this exercise led the Commission to conclude that dams generally flooded rich and fertile agriculture land, displaced millions of people the world over and fragmented and transformed aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems with a range of effects that vary in duration, scale and degree of reversibility. Compared to these negative impacts, the positive impacts - benefits of the dams as brought out in the report - have not been impressive. The Commission claims that the WCD process has pioneered a new path for global public policymaking on issues of equitable and sustainable development.

A limited approachThe two objectives of the Commission were:

- Review the development effectiveness of large dams and assess alternatives for water resources and energy development.

- Develop internationally acceptable criteria and standards where appropriate for planning, design appraisal, construction, operations, monitoring and decommissioning of dams.

In the Indian context and also of developing countries, it is essential to examine whether the Commission has carried out an unbiased review of the development effectiveness of the dams, whether the suggested options are feasible and whether the recommended guidelines are development oriented.

According to the report, the WCD created a knowledge base to start with, since a large part of the Commission's work involved a broad and independent review of the experience with large dams. The Commission also undertook a comprehensive global review of performance and impact of large dams to review the development effectiveness of such dams. However, out of the 45,000 large dams existing in the world, the knowledge base was developed with the data of only eight carefully chosen dams most of which were located in developed countries. Subsequently, just before the release of its report, the WCD disowned its knowledge base developed with special care for reasons known to it. Needless to say that the conclusions drawn by the Commission were influenced by the case studies of this unrepresentative small sample only.

The report has unique features - it has been written by experts having nodding acquaintance on the subject of water resources planning, development and management; it claims to be the outcome of transparent and participatory process but excludes the views of expert organisations on the subject; it professes to be a unanimous work but includes a dissent note; it suggests options causing displacement of millions of people but cries hoarse on the trauma of displacement by dams; and it prefers import of foodgrains to construction of dams for irrigation!

The Commission, by itself being ill-equipped to compile, analyse and study data and other relevant information on the subject, should have drawn upon the expertise available with international organisations such as the International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD), International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID), etc., and made use of the literature and data available with these organisations as also the Project Evaluation Reports of the World Bank. Instead, it chose to rely on the submissions and reports of NGOs and others having only cursory knowledge on the development and management of water resources, thereby affecting its credibility and casting doubts on its motives.

Further, the disclaimed knowledge base derived from a microscopic sample of eight dams has been questioned by experts dubbing it as erroneous and lacking true and comprehensive data needs. It has been contended that some of the statements made in the report are based on inadequately researched data such as the estimates of the number of people displaced by dams, contribution of dams in the production of foodgrains, etc. The very fact that such questionable information could find a place in the report is by itself indicative of the dependence of the Commission on the presentations made by the not so qualified individuals or groups having limited knowledge on the subject.

Indian efforts ignored

India's achievements in the development of its water resources have been remarkable since independence. However, very little attention has been given in the report to the many well-known benefits of dams such as Bhakra, particularly to agriculture, energy and flood control sectors. Further, the overall impact of dam on economic development and its role in employment generation and poverty alleviation has not even been touched upon effectively in the report. Similarly, the support given to sustainable, social and environmental well-being of the people in a sub-basin/basin by the construction and subsequent operation of dam projects does not find a place of importance in the report. The need for increased foodgrain production and drinking water requirements of the burgeoning population in developing countries like India seems to have been of no concern to the Commission. This is evident from the terms of reference given to India case study, which clearly indicated the direction in which the WCD wanted the study to be undertaken. Hence unjustified conclusions have been drawn that the poor, other vulnerable groups and future generations are likely to bear a disproportionate share of social and environmental costs of large dam projects without getting a commensurate share of economic benefits. Since positive aspects/contributions by the dams in the development context were never in its agenda, the WCD concentrated its efforts in outlining the negative effects in detail so as to paint a picture of gloom in the aftermath of a dam project.

Limitations

The approach to assessing alternatives for water resource development, as seen from the report, indicates that the Commission has not carried out any in-depth study or analysis of the ground realities. The options put forth by the WCD highlighting the need for demand and supply management are not new but are well known to countries like India. These are already being practised and are supplementing the efforts in augmenting the resource availability; but the progress is tardy due to many factors peculiar to the country. Similarly, the new supply side option of constructing small rainwater harvesting structures as suggested by the WCD is also not a novel idea, since the country has been engaged in the construction of such structures since time immemorial.

However, going in for such option alone in exclusion of dam projects will not provide the requisite storage capacity to harness the annual monsoon flows occurring within a short period of 3-4 months. The unevenness of rainfall distribution in space and time necessitates large storages to be built to hold the run- off to make available the water when and where required during the non-monsoon period.

The impracticality of the suggested alternative of the WCD will be evident even from a cursory study of the available hydrological data. Against the annual precipitation of 4000 billion cubic metres (BCM) occurring over the Indian landmass, the available run-off is estimated as 1953 BCM as per the report of the National Commission for Integrated Water Resources Development Plan (NCIWRDP). The balance is lost to atmosphere by immediate evaporation and also to the ground as soil moisture. Of this, the utilisable flow is only 1086 BCM comprising 690 BCM of surface run-off and 396 BCM of replenishable ground water. Thus only about 25 per cent of the annual precipitation is utilisable. At present while we are merrily over-exploiting the ground water we have been able to harness only about 250 BCM of river flows through major, medium and minor storages, allowing the balance flows of more than 400 BCM to be wasted to the sea year after year. Such an enormous waste of this precious natural resource is going to have a telling effect on the lifestyle of the people of India. As indicated by NCIWRDP, with a projected population of 1500 million by the year 2050, the water requirement to meet the needs of foodgrains, drinking and a myriad of uses would just match the water availability then, provided the following actions are taken and completed within a fixed time-frame:

- harnessing the surface flows through major, medium and minor storages.

- improving water-use efficiency to the optimum levels; and

- taking necessary steps for demand and supply management.

It may thus be seen that even before WCD was formed, the Government of India had got these issues examined by a high- powered body, NCIWRDP, so as to take necessary implementable actions and that body had suggested the need for all types of storages - major, medium and small - for harnessing the limited monsoon flows, in contrast to WCD's stand-alone options. If we get carried away by WCD's suggestions, we need more than 10 million rainwater harvesting structures to be constructed within a limited period to store the 400 BCM of river flows discharged into the sea annually without being utilised. This would involve acquisition of lakhs of hectares of land mostly from small landholders, displacing millions of poor farmers, a core issue the WCD overlooked while suggesting this option. Further, with the failure of a monsoon, these water bodies get dried up resulting in crop failures, causing large-scale devastation and consequent hardship to people.

If we look into the options suggested for the energy sector, the alternatives to dams are through non-conventional energy sources like solar energy. At present, India's shortfall in peaking capacity is reportedly 10,000 MW, while the global production level from the solar alternative is indicated as 120 MW. Needless to say that it would take decades even to meet the existing shortfall through this option. The production levels of other suggested options like wind and tidal power globally are also meagre compared to the demands.

The Commission claims that it has offered viable options to avoid construction of dams. But while presenting the alternatives it has failed to recognise the present limitations to implement these in the developing countries. Either the Commission has been ignorant of these constraints or it has deliberately ignored them to push through its mandate.

The Commission was also charged with developing internationally acceptable criteria, guidelines, etc., for planning, construction and operation of dams. Here again, it failed to appreciate the water-stressed conditions prevailing in the developing countries and suggested a cumbersome negotiation process with mediation steps for development of their water resources. Such a suggested procedure would ensure that every new development project would be stalled and existing facilities jeopardised. The process has been made further complicated by introducing a provision to revisit the operational parameters of a constructed dam with all stakeholder participation at the end of every five-year period.

The hidden agenda

Developing countries like India which are still to harness their water resource potential even to meet their critical needs have to guard against the recommendations made in the report aimed at slowing down the tempo of development efforts. Instead of making the report a deeply studied, intensely researched, thoroughly analysed, widely discussed and well-thought-out document, the WCD squandered away a golden opportunity by limiting its activities only to collect data necessary to prove its preconceived hypothesis against dams. Consequently, the report turned out to be a compendium of disinformation, wrong information and information based on subjective conclusions. The report is heavily loaded against India as evident from the suggested guidelines wherein barriers have been introduced in future dam constructions. Though the era of colonialist rule is over throughout the world, a new threat to the developing world is in the offing - the danger of eco-colonialism. The advocates of this new form of colonialism are bent upon condemning these countries to a future of sustained underdevelopment by insisting on pre- implementation conditionalities on dam projects which will have the effect of preventing or seriously delaying the urgently needed water resource projects. There is need to caution the people against the trap cleverly being laid by the vested interests who want to dump their surplus foodgrains and other products into these countries in the guise of helping the latter to protect the environment. India has no alternative except to go in for a combination of major, medium and small storages to harness its water resources.

M. S. MENON

Former Chief Engineer,

Central Water Commission

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : Know your English
Next     : Dams & quakes